This is really part one, where Graeme talks briefly about himself then touches upon how little assistance was provided by the government. I feel I must repeat that whether you think he made the wrong decision to accept the contract or if you would have accepted it for half the pay, being upset with Graeme accomplishes little. In our discussion he repeatedly made it clear that he felt he was helping and making the public safer. Some of us believe that, some don't. But those who believe it, why? Because of what the government said? If the cull was wrong, those who justified and spent tax payer dollars on the cull are to blame, much more than this contractor. This employment opportunity did not exist without the government. And it can only exist next year if the people accept it (silence is a form of acceptance, btw.) It is clear Barnett, Baston, Buswell, Hunt, and co. can't be trusted to tell the truth under oath, in press conferences, or to do the right thing. It appears to be in their best interest and their intention to mislead the public, so if you don't want this to happen next year, what exactly are you going to do about it? Something more than vent on Facebook I hope....

After San Francisco joined several other cities around the world in opposition, White Shark Video edited a piece using footage from collaborators across the globe to poke fun at the madness of "Cullin" Barnett and his crew. Popular sentiment at the moment is that Barnett would rather please his wealthy political friends than listen to public outcry, science, reason, or common sense. It makes me very concerned for the future when in an age where information is more accessible than ever, we seem to be taking steps backwards. Using baited hooks near popular beaches to reduce the threat of sharks is enough of a mind melting concept to stop the plan alone. However, it gets better. This carefully thought out and humane plan is so far guilty of the following:

Hiring a fisherman who can't recognize the targeted shark species

Releasing sharks under the targeted size in the same area they were caught

Leaving sharks on the hooks long enough to die before inspection

Shooting the first shark in the head four times after gaffing, roping, and dragging it

Violating their own protection policy for these species

Killing more sharks in three weeks than have killed humans in Australia in years

Failing to hook a single shark of the species responsible for the deaths in Perth that spurred the cull

Removing the hooks from the water for a public swimming event to reduce the danger of sharks being present then returning them after the event. Let that one sink in for a while

Violating 15 different United Nations Conventions and Treaties

Using the Natal Sharks Board as a consultant for how to handle the issue even as scientists pleaded against this.

The Natal Sharks Board in South Africa seems to have a lot in common with Barnett's Administration. For one, NTS is a government supported shark killing machine targeting the very species it lists as a protected species, the great white shark. Secondly, scientific reasoning is thrown to the wayside in this stretch of beaches in Durban, much like in the specific areas now in Australia's spotlight. What do they have in common? Big tourism money, In other words, sharks are dying in order to fulfill the placebo effect of a safer beach in the minds of would-be dollar spenders.

The policy is so corrupt that NTS ignores its own data, yet this is who Barnett looked to for consultation (looking outside the borders of his own country in doing so). Data collected by the KwaZulu-Natal Sharks Board shows the bycatch from drum lining — which causes fatalities among small whales, dolphins, marine turtles and other endangered and innocent species — outnumbers the target catch by 5 to 1. Even when the large numbers of sharks are removed from the ocean, as took place in Hawaii in the 1960s and ’70s when nearly 4,700 sharks were culled, the approach fails to produce a measurable decrease in attacks.Some experts are even warning that drum lines will increase the number of shark attacks. “Whenever you put bait in the water, you always risk bringing something to the area that was not there before,” says Nathan Hart, an associate professor at the University of Western Australia’s School of Animal Biology.The most controversial aspect of the Western Australia plan is that it targets, among other species, the iconic great white shark. With great whites protected in Australia as an endangered species (due to a low rate of reproduction that makes them vulnerable to population collapse), there are thought to be fewer than 3,500 of them left in the ocean.

Credits: Editing by Skyler Thomas All video footage shot by White Shark Video except for Blair Ranford's footage that was kindly donated Shayne Thompson as well as the "tiger shark cam footage" donated by Eli Martines of Shark Diver Magazine. Thanks to Shark Stewards, Earth Island Institute, Meaghan McCord Gray, Kent Stannard, WASC, Maarten Josef Billen, Fin Free Melbourne, and all the protesters for your collaboration. Music by BSOD, I take no credit for it.

How many sharks are there? With 400 + species to track that’s a difficult question. So, how about this; how many white sharks are there? One study says 200 in the Pacific, another says 300, and another says three times that amount. One study says there are only 1,000 in all of South Africa, yet another study claims there are several thousand in each ocean. It would be interesting if one study could be proven as correct and infallible next to the others, but that’s not going to happen. So who’s right? I have the answer, can you guess what it is? The correct answer is NONE OF THE ABOVE.

Now, with NOAA rejecting the proposition to add Pacific white sharks to the endangered species list and some researchers backing this decision the next question is, “how many sharks is the right amount of sharks?” If the study showing there were only 200 in the Pacific turned out to be true would this be grounds for deciding that the white shark should be on the endangered species list? How about if the study claiming there are between 2 and 3 thousand in the Pacific was correct...does that mean the animal is flourishing, even overpopulating? There are 38 MILLION people in California. There are 40 thousand MORE humans in AT&T Park watching the Giants game right now than the most liberal estimate of ALL the white sharks swimming in the Pacific Ocean.

On the other hand, the white shark is at the very top of the food chain, therefore, by nature’s brilliant design the number of white sharks should be relatively low. So how many is that? This also is a rather difficult question...until the painfully obvious answer hits you in the face. The answer is that it’s not for us to decide what the right amount is. That decision is supposed to be up to the one who always gets the answer right; nature. Not humans, not NOAA, not CITES, not the finning industry, not Obama, not Premier Colin Barnett, not China, not Sea Shepherd, not me, not you. None of us.

With so much debate even within the circles of those who love sharks, much less those who’d like to see them all dead, I tried to imagine a world without human interference. How many sharks would there be in the world’s oceans in that case? Humans kill a rough estimate of between 70-100 million a year (11,000 an hour), so if humans were removed from the picture the ocean would be spilling over with sharks, right? Of course not. Nature knows what it’s doing and finds a balance. Life would abound, predator and prey would flourish, deoxygenated zones would become oxygenated, coral reefs would recover, and we wouldn’t have to grow hormone injected fish in mud pits in China for food. Our interference is the only thing between the natural world that should be and the world that is.

Circling back to NOAA’s recent decision, Australia going to bed with Japan and China, and other puzzling occurrences in the shark world, a common theme once again rears its ugly head; money. How about the argument that white sharks shouldn’t be put on the endangered species list because of the resources that would be eaten up in doing so (I heard the number 2 million dollars being thrown around)? First of all, I have heard that number is bogus. Secondly, if it is real, the problem is with the bureaucratic system that requires two million dollars to move a shark to a new status. That is a flaw in the system, not a problem to blame on the shark. Secondly, yes, many other species are in more dire trouble than the white shark and deserve immediate attention. The fact that these other species are not receiving the protection they deserve is our failure, not the white shark’s. Let’s get them all on the list. But in the meantime, please, please, don’t be celebrate when a species is rejected from the list. Every victory we can get is badly needed and overdue. At the slow rate white sharks are estimated to reproduce, once we realize they do need to be on the endangered species list it may be too late.

Oh, wait, when it’s too late is when we start to pay attention, isn’t it?

In 2010, shark conservationists and scientists across California led by David McGuire of Shark Stewards joined in a battle to outlaw the sell and trade of shark fin products in the state. In my own efforts to aid this campaign I discovered over and over again that most people I spoke with were shocked that such a ban didn’t already exist in “our progressive state” and thus I was reminded of the importance of creating awareness. The proposition battled its way through heavy opposition from lobbyists, but finally passed. It was a great day for sharks and California. Last night, in his efforts to continue promoting awareness, McGuire held a free presentation to a packed crowd at Patagonia in San Francisco regarding the battles won, lost, and still to come in the grim world of shark finning. Considering the troubling recent proposed changes in legislation that the United Sates is considering this seemed like an opportune time to ask the local expert more abou the battle to save sharks, so I caught up with David after the event.

WSV: David, it seems the shark fin ban in California has barely gone into effect and it is already facing a big threat. Considering the state of pelagic shark populations and the horrific nature of shark finning, how can National Marine Fisheries department even reconsider their stance on finning?DM: The US is one of about 40 nations, more now that the EU has joined, with regulations banning shark finning (killing a shark just for the fins). In 2000 when President Clinton passed the Federal Shark Conservation Act, killing sharks for just fins became illegal in US waters and by US vessels. However, there were several loopholes that allowed sharks to be landed without fins which allowed more sharks to be taken for their fins, and a pretty noteworthy case where a US flagged vessel laden with shark fins was boarded off Central America, the crew was arrested and the vessel towed to San Diego. This vessel claimed it was not finning but only transporting them. The company won in Federal Court and the ship was released. These loopholes were closed under the 2010 amendment and are now potentially back on the table. It is also potentially undermining our state shark fin bans by allowing some sharks to be landed with fins detached and the fins to be exported. This sabotages shark fishery management and allows the illegally harvested fins to mix with the US fins. We aren’t going to let this happen. In their defense, the National Marine Fisheries Service is just one of 6 offices under NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). NOAA is actually part of the Department of Commerce rather than an environmental agency. Commercial fisheries influence congressmen, then these congressmen do their thing to get re-elected. That usually means jobs in the short term at a loss for fisheries and ecosystems in the future.WSV: That sounds exceptionally complicated. I’m still not sure I understand how unsustainable fishing is allowed to take place despite overwhelming evidence that it is bad.DM: In the US we have the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act which sets the maximum sustainable yield for a fishery. Unfortunately, we generally don’t understand the biology and the ecology well enough and the Maximum yield is not sustainable, consequently the population collapses. This “sustainable” number is usually set too high and regulated with questionable effectiveness (indeed, a quick Wiki search conferred that MSFCMA has been criticized for its failure to stem overfishing). Thus the population does collapse, and the fishery is shut down. Unfortunately, congressmen push to have the fishery reopened and recommendations against such action are all too often ignored.WSV: In your presentation tonight you mentioned a disappointing occurrence in Texas. Tell me more.DM: Following victories here on the west coast, Hawaii and even Illinois just last year, we have been working for (nearly a year) on a bill in Texas to ban shark fin trade there. We were at the finish line when the very congressman who had authored the bill turned around and vetoed the bill. We sailed through the House and I felt our testimony in the Senate and House committees had convinced the politicians that this is important for the health fo the ocean and the Gulf. We had overwhelming support by the public including aquariums and zoos led by the Moody Garden aquarium in Galveston. We had shark fishermen who catch and release come out in support. Texans are concerned about local species being poached for fins in the Gulf by Mexican fishermen. We are concerned about the lack of accountability of this trade. All our hard work died right there with two powerful senators. It was a sad reminder of how an individual can be influenced by the commercial fishing industry.

WSV: Speaking of Texas, you were quoted in the LA times recently regarding the Texas trophy hunter who landed a record 1,300 pound mako shark. What’s the story?DM: Well, I wanted to convey that a catch and release mentality would be preferable to killing the shark. This magnificent predator survived probably 15-20 years to reach this size only to be struck down just as she’d reached the peak of her reproductive years. She’d returned to the warm southern California waters where many animals come to pup and was possibly pregnant. This kind of macho trophy killing for records should be a relic of the past. There are too few large predators any more, and these large female sharks are especialluy important to the population. It’s important not to destroy animals that are of reproductive age when their populations are already fragile. This was all about being on a big game adventure TV show. If the guy wants a thrill he should jump in the water with a Mako. Now that’s thrilling.WSV: Is the fishing of large animals particular harmful to sharks?DM: It is. Let’s say we banned the commercial fishing of tuna for a few years. That species has a decent likelihood of recovering because they reproduce at a high rate. Top level predators like the mako shark or white shark are designed by nature not to reproduce at a high rate, therefore its much harder and takes much longer for such a species to recover.WSV: What about the fishermen’s defense of “donating the shark to science”?DM: What a joke. The physiology of makos is well understood. We might learn something of what the shark ate but that can be determined in other ways without killing the shark. Science needs a tiny sample of flesh for genetics, not the entire animal; the rest of the body was a waste. What we need are living sharks to keep our oceans healthy and balanced, especially sharks of reproductive size and age.WSV: It seems that the thrill of the chase would be the biggest draw for a sportsman. Why go ahead and kill the shark when you’ve already won the battle?DM: The IGFA requires that the fishing equipment and the fish be inspected in order to be officially entered in the record books, therefore the shark had to be brought to shore. Keep in mind, the fishermen had to go several miles into the open ocean to track down an animal like this and the fisherman admitted he had been on countless expeditions running through tons of bait to catch this record shark- all for a reality TV show.…This was an animal that was simply existing and doing its job far from man before it was hunted down to satisfy the ego of one fisherman.WSV: In 2007 much of the world first learned of the finning industry through the movie Shark Water. Around the same time you had a similar experience in some of the same areas featured in that film.DM: In 2003 I became aware of shark finning first hand in French Polynesia diving reefs with hundreds of sharks, and then we dove other islands where the sharks had all been fished out. In the main port I watched as the small boats unloaded tuna but not a single shark body. Yet the rails of the ship were lined with shark fins. I later learned the magnitude of this phenomenon Later I worked in Costa Rica at Cocos Island with Randall Arauz of PRETOMA and in the Galapagos with Sea Shepherd while making the film 180 South with Patagonia. These aggregations of Hammerheads are literally getting hammered for their fins- among the most coveted for shark fin soup. There is too much financial incentive for these fishermen to poach sharks for their fins and too little enforcement. That’s why the fin trade needs to be restricted. Shark water did a great job exposing the practice by bringing the issue to a broad audience. We were alone in the US, with Wild Aid working in Asia. Now there are scores of shark conservation groups all over the world, introducing shark fin bans and better regulations. There is some hope but we have to be vigilant.

Although sharks are protected in the marine park Cocos Islands, in these “protected” waters I witnessed sharks being fished without enforcement because the rangers have one small boat and the area is vast. There was a time when I would watch scalloped hammerheads swim overhead in the hundreds…they just kept going and going. They’re such beautiful, gentle creatures…even my bubbles would scare them away. Well, now you’re lucky to see a handful in the same waters…this is why the scalloped hammerhead is featured in Shark Steward’s logo.WSV: I hear sad stories of government corruption and pressure from China to keep fins coming in from smaller, developing countries…it gets quite depressing to hear similar stories over and over. Is there anyone doing a good job of upholding protection laws?DM: Randall, whom I mentioned earlier, has been the Central American shark hero. He has exposed corruption, engaged leaders, exposed illegal fin operations and is building a coalition among other Central American countries to build better shark management agreements and enforcement.Palau is doing a great job. They’ve learned that a live shark is worth more than a dead one. Ecotourism is a huge industry. If your sharks are all dead you don’t have any shark diving. Furthermore, if your sharks are dead your coral reefs die and you lose the ecotourism and ecosystem services your reefs bring in. Like many places, their resources are limited, but they are self motivated to enforce their laws.

WSV: Seems like a no-brainer. Why isn’t this the case in more places, especially first world countries with resources?DM: For one thing, Palau is an atoll, a relatively small area that can be observed and enforced more easily than say the entire South African coast. Also, we’re talking about billion dollar industries that stand to lose a lot of money if fishing or finning is cut back. There's also the small guys just trying to get by who haven't bought into alternatives yet. It’s a battle between immediate profiteering and planning for the future. As discussed before, the commercial fishing industry has its ways of influencing others to see things their way. But economics can play on the side of conservation. One study estimates a single shark is worth nearly 1 million dollars in services to toursim in Palau over its lifetime. Alternatively, a fishermen might make 100 for the fins and that’s it. Shark toursim and the diving and ecotourism industry may just be the savior of many local shark populations.WSV: What’s next?DM: I’m heading to Samporna in South Malaysia to help the locals establish a shark sanctuary. It’s a beautiful place with tons of sharks and rays but at risk from the fishermen. This region is being heavily fished for sharks and fish that go to China. I’m also going to Hong Kong to meet and investigate the shark fin trade. One of my board members is a famous Chinese actress and diver and we are trying to raise awareness in the place where most shark fin is traded. I’ll be faced with a lot of support and a lot of opposition (depending on which side of shark conservation people stand on) so it will be interesting.WSV: What can we do?DM: Let your voice be heard and your actions seen. Tell your congressman you do not want to weaken our federal laws.. .We are commenting on the proposed exemptions of US fishermen to land and sell fins, and your voice can be added to our online petition. If you see stores selling unsustainable seafood politely tell them your feelings and stop going there. Like shark fin, or blue fin sushi for that matter, our consumption can dictate the market. And of course you can support conservation organizations, like mine!